Summary
The Delhi High Court declared the acquisition of two bighas in village Satbari lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, in a writ petition filed by a person who claimed ownership only through an agreement to sell, assignment deed and possession letter, with no sale deed produced; the High Court did not deal with the Government's objection that a subsequent purchaser has no locus. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal: under Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Phillips a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition, and in any event possession could not be taken because of pending litigation and stay, while Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by Indore Development Authority.
Issues
- Whether a subsequent purchaser of acquired land, claiming through an agreement to sell and assignment deed, has locus to seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013A subsequent purchaser cannot invoke the deemed lapse provision; further, where possession could not be taken due to pending litigation and stay, the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority excludes any lapse. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 7)
Held
- The writ petitioner claimed ownership through an agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt and possession letter, the words 'sale deed' being inserted in ink with no sale deed forthcoming; the Government specifically objected to locus but the High Court did not deal with it. Following Shiv Kumar, Meera Sahni, M. Venkatesh and Godfrey Phillips, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition, so the High Court seriously erred in granting the declaration. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5)
- Even otherwise, possession could not be taken because of pending litigation and stay, and Pune Municipal Corporation, on which the High Court relied, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 31.10.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 6158 of 2016 quashed and set aside; writ petition dismissed and no deemed lapse of the acquisition of Khasra Nos. 668/1 min and 668/2, village Satbari.